I HAVE followed the cross-examination by the defense lawyers at the impeachment trial. Their attempts at getting their client off the hook are valiant — but really, misplaced. They ask, for example, whether they know for a fact that checks were issued in the name of Sara Z. Duterte. They demand to know whether the witnesses can testify that she appropriated the amounts to herself, that she deposited them in her account.
They asked the auditors whether there was any rule that forbade the expenditure of P125 million in 11 days, and lately they have been asking the witness what offense was committed, if any, by using such aliases as the now-infamous “Mary Grace Piatos.”
Section 25, 6 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:
“Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.”
Confidential funds are not, by reason of such a characterization, converted to private funds at the free disposition of any official of the government. They remain public funds and subject to the rule that they be disbursed “only for public purposes” and “subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.”
And to underscore the accountability of government officials, the Constitution confers the following power on the Commission on Audit under Section 2, 2 of Article IX D:
“The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.”
Article I of the Articles of Impeachment in effect charges the vice president with having misappropriated confidential funds and of having spent public money irregularly, unnecessarily, excessively, extravagantly and unconscionably. It was to her office that the funds were released. It was her office that withdrew staggering amounts from the bank. It was her office that prepared lists of payees that bore clearly fictitious and ridiculous names. It is her office that disposed of P125 million in 11 days. All these are matters of fact — established by evidence thus far presented.
When one is the accountable officer for funds paid out of the public coffers, when one has the authority to determine to whom payments should be made, when one decides when and how payments should be made, logic dictates that one has the burden of showing compliance with the prescriptions of the Constitution and of the laws.
Ignoratio elenchi — That is the fallacy one commits when one argues for something that is not in issue — missing the point, in simple terms. And that is what the defense is engaged in.
It argues: “There is no law prohibiting the expenditure of P125 million in 11 days!” Indeed, there is none, but the point is the wanton, reckless and inexplicable spending by the vice president of P125 million in confidential funds in 11 days.
P125 million is enough to pay the salary of 713 entry-level Philippine government employees for a year! Google that and check it for yourselves. The respondent vice president spent this in 11 days. Is this not shocking? Is this not disgusting? Is this not disconcerting?
There is no law prohibiting parents from consuming their life savings and parting with all their property and leaving nothing to their children. But is this right? Does this not disturb the consciences of right-thinking individuals?
And when we are dealing with matters like “public trust” and fidelity both to the letter and to the intendment of the Constitution, should we not be incensed that the second highest official of the land spent P2 million a day?
And it is one fallacy after another!
In the first place, the illegal use of an alias by a person is penalized by the Revised Penal Code, but what the defense wanted Atty. Wamil to admit was that there was nothing wrong for the defendant VP to use aliases for payees.
But that misses the point, a fault the defense always commits.
The point is disbursing astronomical amounts with fictitious payees as recipients within a short span of time with nothing more than the say-so of the defendant that the funds were used for purposes the law allows.
What the defense is trying to do is what scholastic logic called “the fallacy of division”: taking a complex apart and applying to each part the predicate that applies to the whole.
Is the wing a duck? The webbed feet? The feather, perhaps? The beak? The whole thing together is the duck.
This is what Sec. 25, 6 Article VI of the Constitution clearly requires, from which no exception can be carved out:
The complex of subterfuge and deceit: To use one’s position as vice president and Cabinet secretary to cause the allocation of confidential funds, withdrawing prodigious amounts in cash (far from the usual procedure!), disbursing P125 million in 11 days, distributing P2 million per day on the average to persons — or to oneself! — where identities are concealed behind aliases, to treat P125 million like one does petty cash funds as an amount at one’s free disposal, and with nothing to prove that the funds were expended in a manner compliant with law other than one’s self-serving protestation — that is where the high crime is. That is where the public trust is betrayed. That is where the Constitution is culpably violated.
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
Section 25, 6 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:
“Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.”
Confidential funds are not, by reason of such a characterization, converted to private funds at the free disposition of any official of the government. They remain public funds and subject to the rule that they be disbursed “only for public purposes” and “subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.”
And to underscore the accountability of government officials, the Constitution confers the following power on the Commission on Audit under Section 2, 2 of Article IX D:
“The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.”
Article I of the Articles of Impeachment in effect charges the vice president with having misappropriated confidential funds and of having spent public money irregularly, unnecessarily, excessively, extravagantly and unconscionably. It was to her office that the funds were released. It was her office that withdrew staggering amounts from the bank. It was her office that prepared lists of payees that bore clearly fictitious and ridiculous names. It is her office that disposed of P125 million in 11 days. All these are matters of fact — established by evidence thus far presented.
When one is the accountable officer for funds paid out of the public coffers, when one has the authority to determine to whom payments should be made, when one decides when and how payments should be made, logic dictates that one has the burden of showing compliance with the prescriptions of the Constitution and of the laws.
Ignoratio elenchi — That is the fallacy one commits when one argues for something that is not in issue — missing the point, in simple terms. And that is what the defense is engaged in.
It argues: “There is no law prohibiting the expenditure of P125 million in 11 days!” Indeed, there is none, but the point is the wanton, reckless and inexplicable spending by the vice president of P125 million in confidential funds in 11 days.
P125 million is enough to pay the salary of 713 entry-level Philippine government employees for a year! Google that and check it for yourselves. The respondent vice president spent this in 11 days. Is this not shocking? Is this not disgusting? Is this not disconcerting?
There is no law prohibiting parents from consuming their life savings and parting with all their property and leaving nothing to their children. But is this right? Does this not disturb the consciences of right-thinking individuals?
And when we are dealing with matters like “public trust” and fidelity both to the letter and to the intendment of the Constitution, should we not be incensed that the second highest official of the land spent P2 million a day?
And it is one fallacy after another!
In the first place, the illegal use of an alias by a person is penalized by the Revised Penal Code, but what the defense wanted Atty. Wamil to admit was that there was nothing wrong for the defendant VP to use aliases for payees.
But that misses the point, a fault the defense always commits.
The point is disbursing astronomical amounts with fictitious payees as recipients within a short span of time with nothing more than the say-so of the defendant that the funds were used for purposes the law allows.
What the defense is trying to do is what scholastic logic called “the fallacy of division”: taking a complex apart and applying to each part the predicate that applies to the whole.
Is the wing a duck? The webbed feet? The feather, perhaps? The beak? The whole thing together is the duck.
This is what Sec. 25, 6 Article VI of the Constitution clearly requires, from which no exception can be carved out:
The complex of subterfuge and deceit: To use one’s position as vice president and Cabinet secretary to cause the allocation of confidential funds, withdrawing prodigious amounts in cash (far from the usual procedure!), disbursing P125 million in 11 days, distributing P2 million per day on the average to persons — or to oneself! — where identities are concealed behind aliases, to treat P125 million like one does petty cash funds as an amount at one’s free disposal, and with nothing to prove that the funds were expended in a manner compliant with law other than one’s self-serving protestation — that is where the high crime is. That is where the public trust is betrayed. That is where the Constitution is culpably violated.
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
